Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By paul debney
has anybody got any case law that relates to this section of the act?
i have been to a company that charges for safety boots for workers on the shop floor and i need some persuasive documentation to show the md of his duties under section 9.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Lorraine Shuker
Not sure if this will help you but the only one I can think of
Associated Dairies Ltd v. Hartley (1979)
Following a fractured toe injury to an employee, the factory inspector issued an improvement notice (s.2(1)) to a supermarket company requiring the provision of safety footwear free of charge for employees who used roller trucks. At the time, the company made safety footwear available for purchase at cost, and offered a credit system for payment. The company appealed on the grounds of cost outweighing the risk, and also that its current system was reasonable and in line with trade practice.
It was held that the employer's duty under s.2(1) to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable the health, safety and welfare of employees is a general duty, and that it is right to consider the extent of the risk and the time, trouble and expense involved in any specific proposed solution. In this case, the company's existing policy was considered to be in proportion to the risk (considering the cost of provision for all employees at all stores). The law only prohibits a levy being placed on safety equipment provided under specific requirements, not under general duty clauses of the HSWA 1974.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jack
Since ASDA vs Hartley, of course, we have had the PPE Regs, which do impose a specific requirement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jay Joshi
There do not appear to be any HASAWA section 9 breaches on the prosecution database, but the Notices database has HASAWA section 9 a few improvement notices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By paul debney
thanks for the info ladies and genlemen
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By JohnMacCarthy25
I've been there before with the same situation in two respects,
firstly you cannot charge an employee under any circumstance for PPE which is a requirement for their work activities. This has been confirmed to me via the unions and the HSE over a long battle.
Secondly if they wish for a better quality than what your H&S budget allows you still cannot make them part pay for the PPE.
Again its PPE to protect an employee from hazards that you as an employer or representative of the company can not eliminate remember ERIC PD
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Barry Cooper
We provide basic safety footwear and have agreed with the union that we will provide a suitable pair of safety footwear appropriate to the risk. Employee want a choice of nice stylish fancy footwear, so they pay the difference.
I believe we meet our duty under the legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Frank Hallett
Which bit of "you will be the one in the dock" doresn't your MD understand?
If he continues to fail to meet his corporate and individual duties under the law there are a great many things that you, and others, can do. Ask the opinion of your local helpful HSE office; I'm sure that they'll be only too happy to spell it out for you. You can't muck about with these situations if the person in charge doesn't fulfill their legal duty 'cos it could be you in the dock instead.
Frank Hallett
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By J Knight
John, what you're saying about noe part-paying for PPE runs contrary to established knowledge on this subject. It sounds like this view has been imposed on you, if so, who by? If this is e.g. HSE's position now then we have a lot of policy re-writing to do,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.